Read more!

On September 29th 2018 I took
part in Ireland’s annual “March
for Choice” to pressure the government for “free, safe, legal” abortion
following the pro-choice vote in May’s referendum. You could feel the demo
coming for miles on the train: people got on displaying rows of badges in
fantastic costumes and holding placards. The march was cheerful, confident and
determined.

A conservative cliché has it that ‘Irish
people don’t protest,’ and that they are afraid of standing out or saying
something controversial. Yet from the start of the referendum campaign people
with no previous experience of activism wore “Repeal” jumpers in the streets,
told their often horrendous stories in public, and knocked on strangers’ doors,
usually meeting a positive response (66.4% of voters voted ‘yes’).

As this shows, it doesn’t take so much for
social expectations and personal behaviour to change, for a country to become a
“movement
society” where activism is a normal everyday thing rather than strange or
alien – and where its results can transform not just laws but lives.

Women’s movements have powerfully changed
the vast majority of the world’s countries over the past half-century – and continue
to do so, as the #MeToo movement testifies. As that movement also shows, public
controversy and private transformation are not so separate. Between the
high-profile challenge to a Harvey Weinstein and a non-celebrity woman quietly
telling her story lies the slow and difficult process of challenging workplace
cultures, community norms, family relationships and adolescent culture.

Moving further back in time, most of the
world’s countries including Ireland became independent from European empires
within living memory. Others overthrew fascism, state socialism, apartheid,
other dictatorships and the odd monarchy. The idea that activism is something
other than a normal, everyday part of human activity is just a story.

In working-class and ethnic minority
communities where struggle is routine to get basic services, resist police
oppression, self-organise to meet everyday needs or assert community pride,
those who do much of this work often resist the term ‘activist’ because it drives
a wedge between them and their friends, neighbours, families and other
community members who are also involved, if perhaps not so frequently or
determinedly.

But more generally, when activism is seen
as separate from the rest of life or as an eccentric leisure activity we need
to ask why this is. What happens to make movements seem so impossibly distant?

I once took part in a discussion about
engaged Buddhism in my local meditation centre. Participants talked in hushed
tones about earth-shattering decisions like choosing to buy this rather than
that or voting for a different party as the outward limit of what they could
imagine. It reminded me of other Buddhist discussions about ethics where similarly
young, well-educated, ethnically-privileged people talked about helping others
as a strange, radical step to support their meditation practice.

The questions that struck me were: what
sort of world do you have to live in to think that helping other people is unusual? How do you imagine people actually
survive when they don’t have money to meet their needs? What is it about
working together to make things better that seems so hard to imagine?

One answer is that much of what is
represented in our media as normal is anything but. As Oliver
James notes in his book Affluenza,
the US and UK – whose cultural
production dominates both global media and academia and which are often taken
as the norm for psychological research – show particularly high levels of
social and family disconnection and isolation, especially among the wealthy (and,
I would add, men, whites and straight/cis populations). But these post-Reagan,
post-Thatcher subcultures that revolve around individuals and their bank
balances are not the human norm, and their disconnect from everyday solidarity,
caring labour and collective action is not representative of our species as a
whole.

In the rural west of Ireland, for example,
things are very different. Here too people can be very nervous of activism, but
for other reasons. In small communities, people are so involved with one
another for everyday practicalities like lifts, childcare, lending or giving
things, and helping out that the costs of falling out are very high. As a
result, people watch carefully to find out which way the wind is blowing before
putting their heads above the parapet. And when such communities do engage in
action it is typically collective for this reason.

Neither situation – being so disconnected
from other human beings that collective action seems emotionally impossible or
being so dependent on others that individual decisions seem too threatening to
take – is particularly good for us. And despite what the inhabitants of these
different worlds often think, neither represents the human norm.

In fact, despite the stories they tell
themselves, people in these worlds also engage in social movements. For
example, early second-wave feminism had strong bases among college-educated
women (among others), and pro-choice canvassers in rural Irish communities met
with remarkable levels of support. As Galileo is supposed to have said, “and
yet it does move.” Why?

A simple answer is that activism and
movements express real human needs against the structures and cultures that
deny them, and which block our development and force us into narrow and stunted
lives; they are part of a fuller human life.

The Italian communist Antonio Gramsci put this
particularly clearly: against the “common sense” that seeks to resign us to the
way things are right now and to get our consent for the power structures in
society, we need to develop a “good sense.” This good sense articulates stifled
needs and tries to find ways of helping them to breathe: but for them to
breathe fully, real change is needed in an oppressive and exploitative world.

This means that we have to overcome the “muck
of ages” as Marx put it - the ways in which we routinely buy into this common
sense; develop relationships that reproduce existing structures of wealth,
power and status; battle one another for relative privilege within a social
order that we fail to challenge; and internalise our own forms of oppression,
exploitation and stigmatisation.

In thissense, changing the world and changing ourselves are not two separate
things: if there is one consistent finding from the history of social
movements, it is that the means of
how we organise, theorise and strategise, and the forms of personhood we
encourage and reward among activists, all too predictably become the ends. Or put another way, what we do to
and with each other in organising has real and direct effects on participants,
whether or not we are successful in the much chancier business of reorganising
wider society.

We remake ourselves, not individually but
collectively, in movements. Notably, we move away from a local and ethnocentric
sense of ‘we’ to a much broader identity through the process of solidarity and
alliance-building – and to a much longer one as we come to situate our activism
in a movement history that is not restricted to our own immediate concerns.

In these ways, participating in movements
can be emotionally healthy in very basic ways - a form of deeper maturing
beyond the restricted possibilities presented by a world shaped by capitalism,
patriarchy and racism. This means articulating our needs together against how
things currently happen to be. It means coming to live in a wider world than
the one that is immediately presented to us.

It also means coming to make our world in a way which is less
and less available in modernity. For most of us, most of the time, our
lifeworld is presented to us for relatively passive consumption, not something
we actively create. This is why the greatest satisfaction in alienated
workplaces is often found either in manual skill or in helping people
effectively – against the profit, power and bullshit that actually
structure most jobs; and why gardening, cooking, DIY, craft and other forms of
shaping our own environment are so rewarding.

Social movements are transformative not
only in the changes they bring about in the worlds we live in. They are
transformative because we are
attempting to bring about these changes, because we are experiencing ourselves
as subjects rather than objects in the big structures that shape our lives, and
so living a fuller adulthood. In this sense movement activism is a fundamental
aspect of emotional health and maturity.

This
essay draws on Laurence Cox’s new book Why Social Movements Matter(Rowman and Littlefield International),
available from the publishers at a 30% discount using code WSMM18.

Related

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. If you have any queries about republishing please contact us. Please check individual images for licensing details.